Mt Gox outragious 3% now, then 6.5% transaction fee

[chungenhung]

I think it is time you guys think about trading Mt. Gox.
On the website, there is no direct link showing the transaction fee, so I had to submit a ticket.
Came back, was told it is 3% now, and will be 6.5%.
That kind of cut is insanely high for an insanely unsafe trading platform.

[Drifter]

The fee is .3% now, .65% later.

[SlipperySlope]

For the next 25 days or so, certain traders affected directly by the Mt Gox rollback have zero commissions.  That accounts for the historically narrow spreads.

[chungenhung]

The fee is .3% now, .65% later.

Lol, the rep told me 3% and 6.5%.
See, another reason why you wouldn't want to mess with them.
No security, no customer service, or simply uneducated customer service.

[Drifter]

The website does have the transaction fee.

"Mt Gox charges a small fee (0.30%) for each trade." While logged out on https://mtgox.com/trade, it shows .65%, but once your logged in that changes. Unsure if new users still get the discount? Either way, it's listed there.

[chungenhung]

For the next 25 days or so, certain traders affected directly by the Mt Gox rollback have zero commissions.  That accounts for the historically narrow spreads.

Really? you would take zero commisions on a ROLLBACK?
Someone could have made millions buying them at $0.01.
Can you imaging the stock/forex market having to ROLLBACK?
Not that I bought any at $0.01, but Mt Gox should be the one footing the bill.
If they want to offer a trading platform, they better be tight on security and have tons of insurance.
Fact is, it is Mt. Gox fault, and in the end, they paid nothing for their mistake.

[Jack of Diamonds]

2nd grade called and said 0.30% is ten times less than 3%.

[kwiky]

I see these when I login, notice right above the Buy Bitcoins near the top.

https://i.imgur.com/vGHLq.jpg

[dinzy]

For the next 25 days or so, certain traders affected directly by the Mt Gox rollback have zero commissions.  That accounts for the historically narrow spreads.

Please prove this!  Conjecture is one thing, stating a conjecture as fact is something entirely different.

[Atom]

Well without fees to worry about, even a .001% gain is an actual gain, which means if the competition is fierce on the selling side the margins can compress pretty much infinitely and still be functionally profitable (assuming they're not valuing the time to do the trading very highly)

Fees unbalance the equation and increase the spread by being a cost of doing business that must be accounted for.

[wndrbr3d]

I'm still shocked this floors anyone. I've worked in the financial industry developing real time trading platforms for multiple clearing & execution firms, and I can say without a doubt that the "fees" associated with trading bitcoins is a drop in the bucket compared to the fees/commissions you pay when trading equities/options/etc.

Some of the lowest rates you'll see from popular Broker Dealers are like, $5 per equity or $5 base + $0.65 per contract. Some RIA's charge upwards of $50 per transaction. So transaction rates, especially based on the average volume moved per trade in the .3-.65% range are paltry.

If anything take advantage of it now before they go up.

[SlipperySlope]

For the next 25 days or so, certain traders affected directly by the Mt Gox rollback have zero commissions.  That accounts for the historically narrow spreads.

Please prove this!  Conjecture is one thing, stating a conjecture as fact is something entirely different.

From the Mt Gox web site ...

[Update June 23 - 05:00 GMT] Reduced Trade fees.
We realize that it will take many steps and vastly improved security to regain the trust of our users and the bitcoin community, but for now as a token of our gratitude for the extreme patience our users have shown, and as a way of saying we sincerely sorry for the breach of security that lead to the sell-off, we will be reducing trade fees to 0.3% (from 0.65%) for two weeks following Mt.Gox's reopening.

Users whose trades were effectively cancelled during the the sell-off will be able to trade for free for 1 month following the reopening, and will also receive a free subscription to our upcoming 2-Step SMS security authentication feature for as long as they hold their account.

Regarding my conclusion, see http://www.forextraders.com/forex-broker-tips/dealing-spreads-provide-incentives.html for a description of how market maker spreads are determined. 

Briefly, to conduct a profitable market making operation, the market maker places both a bid order and an ask order from their inventory.

(1) The price spread between these two orders must cover the market commissions - if any.  The market maker profits as buyers entering the market purchase at the ask price, and conversely sellers sell at market maker's bid price.  Assuming a typical transaction distribution of such buyers and sellers, market making is profitable. 

(2) Competition between market makers forces the spreads to the lowest profitable level. Thus, if a certain number of active Mt Gox traders have zero commissions, then their market making activity generally determines the spread. 

Therefore it is shown that zero commissions cause historically narrow spreads.

[SlipperySlope]

I'm still shocked this floors anyone. I've worked in the financial industry developing real time trading platforms for multiple clearing & execution firms, and I can say without a doubt that the "fees" associated with trading bitcoins is a drop in the bucket compared to the fees/commissions you pay when trading equities/options/etc.

Some of the lowest rates you'll see from popular Broker Dealers are like, $5 per equity or $5 base + $0.65 per contract. Some RIA's charge upwards of $50 per transaction. So transaction rates, especially based on the average volume moved per trade in the .3-.65% range are paltry.

If anything take advantage of it now before they go up.

I don't have your experience, and please forgive that, but my research on FOREX shows that there is no central market that charges commissions. Rather FOREX, i.e. the foreign exchange market, is organized on a distributed basis between FOREX market makers.  Furthermore, FOREX operates as layers of peers, such that the innermost market has large banks as members that interchange large orders on very narrow spreads - and such that the outermost layer dealing with the public has more or less fixed percentage fees derived from the spreads charged by inner layer market makers.

If you agree with my characterization, then perhaps the bitcoin FOREX market will evolve in this direction, in which direct interaction between big players will sidestep commission-charging markets, e.g. Mt Gox - leading to yet another sort of FOREX free of centrally-charged commissions.

[dinzy]

For the next 25 days or so, certain traders affected directly by the Mt Gox rollback have zero commissions.  That accounts for the historically narrow spreads.

Please prove this!  Conjecture is one thing, stating a conjecture as fact is something entirely different.

From the Mt Gox web site ...

[Update June 23 - 05:00 GMT] Reduced Trade fees.
We realize that it will take many steps and vastly improved security to regain the trust of our users and the bitcoin community, but for now as a token of our gratitude for the extreme patience our users have shown, and as a way of saying we sincerely sorry for the breach of security that lead to the sell-off, we will be reducing trade fees to 0.3% (from 0.65%) for two weeks following Mt.Gox's reopening.

Users whose trades were effectively cancelled during the the sell-off will be able to trade for free for 1 month following the reopening, and will also receive a free subscription to our upcoming 2-Step SMS security authentication feature for as long as they hold their account.

Regarding my conclusion, see http://www.forextraders.com/forex-broker-tips/dealing-spreads-provide-incentives.html for a description of how market maker spreads are determined. 

Briefly, to conduct a profitable market making operation, the market maker places both a bid order and an ask order from their inventory.

(1) The price spread between these two orders must cover the market commissions - if any.  The market maker profits as buyers entering the market purchase at the ask price, and conversely sellers sell at market maker's bid price.  Assuming a typical transaction distribution of such buyers and sellers, market making is profitable. 

(2) Competition between market makers forces the spreads to the lowest profitable level. Thus, if a certain number of active Mt Gox traders have zero commissions, then their market making activity generally determines the spread. 

Therefore it is shown that zero commissions cause historically narrow spreads.

I was not asking you to prove Mt.Gox gave 0 commission, I was asking you to back up your claim with data.  All you have done is show that A could cause B and then declared A has caused B because B occurred.  I understand that 0 fees make it easy to trade on narrow margins, however I want proof that this is what is keeping the market stable.  There are other possibilities, and the fact that margins were so low over most of the week seem to negate this.  If only 20k BTC are traded in a day and the price is in a tiny 0.30 window, the max profit coming out of it is minimal considering that those trades are made by hundreds if not thousands of people, not all of whom necessarily even have the 0%.     

Historical trends do not provide a cause for present circumstances.  You need data, and even then you will not prove something, but instead demonstrate a case for your proposed model. 

Your argument is tenuous at best and does not prove anything.  The low commission certainly is at play in this market, but so is low volume, and a very strong wait and see attitude.

[SlipperySlope]

I understand that 0 fees make it easy to trade on narrow margins, however I want proof that this is what is keeping the market stable.

Sorry that I misunderstood your objection to my statement. Apparently what I described as market spreads, you meant market stability. With that clarification, your point stands.  I have nothing to offer regarding market volatility in the face of zero commissions.

For others, the definition of market spread: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketmakerspread.asp
the definition of market volatility: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/volatility.asp

[FooDSt4mP]

I understand that 0 fees make it easy to trade on narrow margins, however I want proof that this is what is keeping the market stable.

Sorry that I misunderstood your objection to my statement. Apparently what I described as market spreads, you meant market stability. With that clarification, your point stands.  I have nothing to offer regarding market volatility in the face of zero commissions.

For others, the definition of market spread: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketmakerspread.asp
the definition of market volatility: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/volatility.asp

0 commissions allows market makers to profit from a smaller spread, therefore they are more likely to decrease the spread below the volatility they are comfortable with.  When commissions are higher than zero, the profits are sometimes less than the fees, and no sane person would purposely trade at a loss.

[cypherdoc]

For the next 25 days or so, certain traders affected directly by the Mt Gox rollback have zero commissions.  That accounts for the historically narrow spreads.

Really? you would take zero commisions on a ROLLBACK?
Someone could have made millions buying them at $0.01.
Can you imaging the stock/forex market having to ROLLBACK?
Not that I bought any at $0.01, but Mt Gox should be the one footing the bill.
If they want to offer a trading platform, they better be tight on security and have tons of insurance.
Fact is, it is Mt. Gox fault, and in the end, they paid nothing for their mistake.

they are taking the hit.  2000 BTC worth.  see their announcement from yesterday.

[kjj]

For the next 25 days or so, certain traders affected directly by the Mt Gox rollback have zero commissions.  That accounts for the historically narrow spreads.

Really? you would take zero commisions on a ROLLBACK?
Someone could have made millions buying them at $0.01.
Can you imaging the stock/forex market having to ROLLBACK?
Not that I bought any at $0.01, but Mt Gox should be the one footing the bill.
If they want to offer a trading platform, they better be tight on security and have tons of insurance.
Fact is, it is Mt. Gox fault, and in the end, they paid nothing for their mistake.

Go troll somewhere else.

Most of your sentences start with capital letters and include punctuation, so I can't imagine that your reading comprehension is so bad that you are making an honest mistake here.

The rollback also rolled fees back, so no one paid any fees at all from the time just before the big oops until trading opened again.  The zero commission special going on right now is for trades made after the site reopened, that is for trades in the future.

[chungenhung]

For the next 25 days or so, certain traders affected directly by the Mt Gox rollback have zero commissions.  That accounts for the historically narrow spreads.

Really? you would take zero commisions on a ROLLBACK?
Someone could have made millions buying them at $0.01.
Can you imaging the stock/forex market having to ROLLBACK?
Not that I bought any at $0.01, but Mt Gox should be the one footing the bill.
If they want to offer a trading platform, they better be tight on security and have tons of insurance.
Fact is, it is Mt. Gox fault, and in the end, they paid nothing for their mistake.

Go troll somewhere else.

Most of your sentences start with capital letters and include punctuation, so I can't imagine that your reading comprehension is so bad that you are making an honest mistake here.

The rollback also rolled fees back, so no one paid any fees at all from the time just before the big oops until trading opened again.  The zero commission special going on right now is for trades made after the site reopened, that is for trades in the future.

making what mistake?
the transaction fee I post on the first post is based on the support ticket mtgox response.

Code:

Charlie, Jul-01 18:40 (JST):

Hello,

It is 3percent as in right now and after a month it will become normal amount, which is 6.5 percent.

Thanks,

MtGox.com Team

Was just stating fact on what I learned from their CS team, and letting people aware that there are better options out there.
I was a big mt gox user, but their lack of service/competency have made me switch to tradehill.

[kjj]

making what mistake?
the transaction fee I post on the first post is based on the support ticket mtgox response.

Was just stating fact on what I learned from their CS team, and letting people aware that there are better options out there.
I was a big mt gox user, but their lack of service/competency have made me switch to tradehill.

Yup, and that is a mistake on their part.  A trivial mistake.  And a common one.  For example, Verizon's call center staff doesn't seem to understand the difference between 0.02 dollars and 0.02 cents.  Read more here.

Now how do you explain the gibberish I quoted before?

For the next 25 days or so, certain traders affected directly by the Mt Gox rollback have zero commissions.  That accounts for the historically narrow spreads.

Really? you would take zero commisions on a ROLLBACK?
Someone could have made millions buying them at $0.01.
Can you imaging the stock/forex market having to ROLLBACK?
Not that I bought any at $0.01, but Mt Gox should be the one footing the bill.
If they want to offer a trading platform, they better be tight on security and have tons of insurance.
Fact is, it is Mt. Gox fault, and in the end, they paid nothing for their mistake.